ghl_get_knowledge_base

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes a read operation and highlights the return payload (full details with metadata counts), but it does not disclose potential error conditions (e.g., 404 on missing ID), authentication requirements, or other edge cases. Adequate for a simple GET, but not rich in behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds value. The first states the operation, the second details the return content. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter GET tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential operation and high-level return information (full details, metadata counts). It is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool, though it could list more specific return fields or usage caveats.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (knowledgeBaseId), including its description. The tool description mentions 'by ID' but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'knowledge base' by ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_list_knowledge_bases, ghl_create_knowledge_base, etc. It also adds a specific detail about returning kbMetadata counts, making the purpose even clearer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving a single knowledge base when the ID is known, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the list tool or mention when the list variant would be more appropriate. This is clear context without explicit exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.